[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6099082,"mediaKeyId","2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7","parentId",2821513,"title","Votes at a glance: House floor action March 31 — bills concurred or passed on second/third readings","audioSeconds",226,"startMs",8963000,"endMs",9189000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7&start=8963&end=9189","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7/thumbnail_8963000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6099082/Montana/Votes-at-a-glance-House-floor-action-March-31-bills-concurred-or-passed-on-secondthird-readings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099082-1e2177844657113bbf5daa01daf8642c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770701232&Signature=Yev4PYTme6qYYdzPLNlZjS0zeyHBks6RveClhqXfNp38Jv4oiKm~SfZP--E2dGdK2jS2FuykElwD7kwzOyWtfRuUj3mg4mpMAvypsJJHAhZVIBK-3TOAs-WNOGmFlha2wJRLltwYTLQus4Rb3fBLuiNOyp5RADeSnfonz1kXS9XjlxIDqc1A5RTvnUKYWPsF9i7DoT4HN~AUd3cyLtN2~rG71wjPmqOYEP9eye~6h6uTGwV8O8y4ZPCAoWagHI45wftLi0FOWsEpC5YYKWJt5J171FlwNltYPumh764jdGSC2JziVZSRP1b9mJ5AGlj5mwrzDxRn9BP~UsuWQ3Gbww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-29T00:00:00Z","article","The Montana House took final and concurrence votes on a large set of bills during its March 31 floor session. The House adopted committee reports and recorded third‑reading outcomes for many bills. Below are items the House passed or concurred in during the recorded floor period; items with substantive floor debate have separate articles.

Selected concurrence/passage results recorded on the floor (not exhaustive):

- Senate Bill 315 — Allocate funding for petroleum tank cleanup — Passed (house announcement: 96 aye, 0 no). Transcript: third reading recorded passage.
- House Bill 88 — Automatic return of certain unclaimed property — Passed (96–0).
- House Bill 502 — Establish board of facility health care professionals — Passed (96–0).
- Senate Bill 35 — Clarify enrollment counts for early literacy jump start program — Passed (95–0).
- Senate Bill 36 — Remove expired contingency language related to generating unit closure — Passed (96–0).
- Senate Bill 115 — Revising election law public notice provisions — Passed (96–0).
- Senate Bill 83 — Commission authority for public use of private property under access agreements — Passed (95–1).
- Senate Bill 111 — Green lights on snow removal equipment — Passed (96–0).
- Senate Bill 70/79 (floor sequence): Passed (counts recorded as 96–0 on transcript entries).

Other committee concurrence votes recorded earlier in the day and reported to the floor (committee recommendations adopted or concurred in): many Senate bills (for example, SB56, SB365, SB368, SB233, SB236, SB266/other series) were read and concurred in across the day; a number of House bills were passed on third reading as listed above. Where the transcript recorded a numerical tally, that figure is listed above; where no floor tally was recorded in the excerpt, the transcript indicates \"has been concurred in\" without a numeric roll call.

Why it matters: The votes move a broad set of technical and policy measures forward in the legislative process. For items involving appropriations or policy changes with possible fiscal impact, the House adoption or concurrence will prompt implementation steps or administrative rule work.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Floor Session - Saturday, Mar 29, 2025 09:01 - 12:00","oneSentenceSummary","The House recorded concurrence/passage on multiple Senate and House bills during the March 31 floor session. Many measures were concurred with little debate; several were discussed at length and covered in separate articles.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6099087,"House concurs in pension employer contribution extension after debate on long‑term liabilities",601,2748000,3349000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7&start=2748&end=3349","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7/thumbnail_2748000.jpg","/articles/6099087/Montana/House-concurs-in-pension-employer-contribution-extension-after-debate-on-longterm-liabilities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099087-b2cbf1cc960f0120b2db8d0e805d8e3d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770701231&Signature=mVNGbTMEaTcwTyyljqgPK3p3CP~N~0Dq2XJan4Lh8CZ~1FTgqWd9kEh95~ZpaZnHwX0kaMoDPY~BeGEGwcEvxERn3XS18KH0pCGNalUNAvLt3r3kfIF2tLK2~er1awj0KOAX2sMkC0ulSL80i3xI1mo7HKDqRv4jMNBOZKWgTsu8XhEqP7s7RJAz0rj6JlHLr6OgsUhH2khEFFogmADrLDsGcmUGKzjHh3pkqqwFFmBiTLvaKZBNKzHuAeIv9~giqlEGHlD4GiOhwbbjmJn1bXN-7q4D3f6KdMx5UmmyxSRuEMGdHGxNEHcDBNzIhn3Bl4N0Ky6HGlG1NfDGphNEZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 56 would extend and increase supplemental employer contribution rates for the Public Employees' Retirement System and add supplemental rates for the Highway Patrol Officers', Sheriffs' and Game Wardens' retirement systems. Representative Perry, carrying the bill, said the changes extend a termination date from June 30, 2025 to June 30, 2035 and add an annual 0.1 percentage point increase in employer contributions, with annual actuarial reviews.

Perry explained the bill's purpose as managing actuarial amortization targets and noted assumptions that investment returns would average 7.5 percent. He told members the change would reduce amortization periods for several pension accounts and help keep the plans on a stable glide path.

Other lawmakers criticized cumulative legislative actions that, in their view, have reversed prior pension reforms. Representative Schomer (and others) said successive session changes have undermined last session's effort to improve solvency. Supporters, including Representative Thain, pointed to fiscal note tables showing reduced amortization periods for several funds and urged a green vote.

The House concurred in Senate Bill 56 on the floor; the clerk recorded 82 ayes and 18 no votes. Supporters said the measure preserves promised benefits for public employees and keeps the pension systems on actuarial targets; critics warned that recurring legislative fixes continue to shift costs to taxpayers and do not fix long‑term liabilities.

Why it matters: The bill affects employer (taxpayer) contributions into multiple public retirement systems and changes amortization schedules used by actuaries to measure unfunded liabilities.","Lawmakers concurred in Senate Bill 56 to extend and add supplemental employer contribution rates for several retirement systems. Debate focused on long‑term obligations, amortization periods and whether recent legislative changes have undermined prior pension reforms.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6099092,"House concurs in bill to allow private security guard licensure before employment after debate over insurance and public safety",870,6434000,7304000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7&start=6434&end=7304","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7/thumbnail_6434000.jpg","/articles/6099092/Montana/House-concurs-in-bill-to-allow-private-security-guard-licensure-before-employment-after-debate-over-insurance-and-public-safety","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099092-7b578fde9e32546b551b89df03aa40e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770701232&Signature=BJkGKUGv9GdEDHKY-p9qRoGZ1LB0fcKCFS4FgYHzoYzyhBYxMuiqItJFn5rL5mZTufti1EF7E1i0X8xxonKZkuBMKEOp0R0-gu7n53umfoHCspv53UOAXsZmRhkoNic82Ytx1KaS~4tvpuU-KxghLbxmwWqSE3LIslN-2BV6GuUOmlB0NjsxvNYqIC~J5cOQhsFyb2MuJJHLiuHdpCKeKwhbfaZuSZb-nLcFEUMal2U5OGbcEuRJYOW0Y9G5KcKCI-SiVoNDzeTX36kawD9H2cUJQ5LE1gWxUXicHKTREl-UJ6v3CXMtITmg65ruswD-HJjK3vPwkJIb1ka4wuuo5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House voted to concur in Senate Bill 198 after lawmakers debated whether applicants should be able to obtain a private security guard license before securing employment with a licensed security firm.

Representative Manus, bill carrier, said the change allows individuals to complete training and secure licensure before finding employment or operating as independent contractors: \"We're allowing a person to go get that license, be ready, go find an employer,\" Manus said.

Opponents raised concerns about liability and insurance. In committee and on the floor Representative Baum and Representative Staffman warned that removing the employment requirement could create uninsured private contractors performing security work and expose clients and the public to liability. Staffman said the current process assures training, insurance and an employer's oversight.

Supporters countered that licensure still requires training, background checks and that firms remain subject to insurance and registration requirements. Representative Schomer, who spoke in support, framed the change as akin to other occupational licenses (for example, guide licenses) that allow people to obtain credentials before lining up an employer.

On the concurrence motion the House recorded 56 yes and 44 no. The transcript records the tally and multiple speakers debating safety and insurance requirements.

Why it matters: The change shifts how licensing for private security works in Montana and prompted discussion about consumer protection, training standards and whether the state or market should enforce insurance and oversight.

Votes and next steps: Senate Bill 198 was concurred in by the House; as a Senate bill the measure proceeds per standard inter‑chamber concurrence procedure.","The House concurred in Senate Bill 198, which removes a requirement that a private security applicant show prior employment by a security firm before receiving state licensure; opponents warned it could allow uninsured independent contractors to operate, while supporters said training and business insurance rules still apply.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6099098,"House concurs in bill requiring 1% longevity for detention officers; debate centers on local cost and unfunded mandate",961,4575000,5536000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7&start=4575&end=5536","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7/thumbnail_4575000.jpg","/articles/6099098/Montana/House-concurs-in-bill-requiring-1-longevity-for-detention-officers-debate-centers-on-local-cost-and-unfunded-mandate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099098-6d2c15dd878ae3a2eeeb28da229c84c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770701232&Signature=aimeNc5zvuXW6CXzwgvjOGbT-Ql8-7i12CCEPiu1EK7VshdGEtMUATbD0hhjrD98rlCgrs~unIi0i5bB7qPH9kqD6C7npRep9voWKhfG9G8KAX5Ur6TfAFctkzQpQ0h73ImC5MJDxXnbdOABOwgZvMnt5HSD1fK4NJa2FcdG-6Med6A9dWQGTAYOfFtmpEKXx065jJEy2GMqJ5NfmtQRuC6z8NzBmrzeSKGcCSqchnv1pvqDanLfeogFEzhlhw7a37wv~O4BECqvi4dQoOHErfYVPk9TjY1-0eEVwBJ5yHMzd3qxcHXCv5L3iEiJjSfprqrNYP5dCBsjXojiNXVtog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House members debated Senate Bill 236, which would require counties to provide detention officers a 1% annual longevity payment, bringing them into parity with sheriffs and other county law enforcement longevity benefits.

Sponsor Representative Estman said the change would improve recruitment and retention and cited an average detention officer wage near $19 per hour. \"This is gonna give them 1% per year after they've worked there for a year, and it will be given to them in their monthly paychecks,\" Estman said.

Opponents called the measure an unfunded mandate on counties. Representative Byrne said the state ‘‘owes nothing’’ and urged a no vote; Representative Mercer and other opponents argued counties should retain bargaining discretion and local control over county budgets. Supporters, including representatives with corrections experience, described detention work as demanding and largely unseen and argued the modest longevity would help retention.

During debate Representative Esman noted an existing statute referenced in floor remarks (transcript reference to \"MCA 7 4 2 2 5 0 7\"), arguing the omission of detention officers from a prior statutory longevity requirement appeared to be an oversight the bill corrects. The sponsor described 37 counties as having detention facilities; the sponsor said 21 of those counties already provide longevity by contract, leaving roughly 16 counties that would be affected.

The committee recommendation to concur was adopted by the House on a 58–42 recorded vote. The transcript records absentee recorded votes for Brewster, Falk and Vinton as \"aye.\"","House concurred in Senate Bill 236 on a 58–42 vote after lengthy debate over whether the change imposes an unfunded mandate on counties. Supporters framed it as recruitment and retention for difficult correctional work; opponents said it should remain a county bargaining decision.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6099102,"House committee advances bill to eliminate reduced‑price co‑pays for school meals; floor vote sends measure to appropriations",1198,615000,1813000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7&start=615&end=1813","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2821513-468684dd23fa7ea39ff13e423bc71fd7/thumbnail_615000.jpg","/articles/6099102/Montana/House-committee-advances-bill-to-eliminate-reducedprice-copays-for-school-meals-floor-vote-sends-measure-to-appropriations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6099102-7e1509032c920bee76c6eaf24f6c3b7e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770701232&Signature=AtPT8zGoln97Vwyy~Gc1p1ZvK6M-uIdfzq2NbXX6DBqKUY02VZVL6-eieBwwiA1IZxx1qA1Lv9RGiSLyNV8mxDG06KmGz0GXVxd6Yg6M9Gc7aCmYVmME0z6ZiOp1p~9XLbRu-01xR2wczq1hohuJnTB6eaHYeCXWBRTFSHiN6cEj4ZcKkMAe4fRm6i36N2zhDPmcS91y-zECphUyj5ovBMdql9kDH03pQD8vIfgRqhfRLlL8QLU-~vrvaGMdZ5HbEJxhzh2xVF7YaCUMkSPe64ZRQFHwBm8Ydcn3J2VMrRNQP-n0-L2Cpk6f2rSiTcMaQW9Jnnwh3it0ZmB9gNkg5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Will Romano pushed House Bill 551 to remove the small co‑payments families now pay for reduced‑price school breakfast and lunch, saying the change would ease food insecurity and stigma for students.

Romano, the bill sponsor, said the measure would allocate $600,000 annually from the state general fund and authorized the superintendent of public instruction to seek donations or further appropriations if needed. \"For about a hundred dollars per student, we can ease the burden of hard working families who struggle to cover essentials,\" Romano said.

The proposal drew extended floor debate. Representative Strand, speaking from classroom experience, described administrative and social burdens on schools that collect unpaid meal balances: \"So the school ends up putting in precious resources into calling families, pay the bills ... there's a lot of stigma,\" Strand said. Representative Gillette asked for counts; Romano replied that about 5,676 students qualified for reduced‑price meals in the 2024–25 school year and that students typically paid 40¢ for lunch and 30¢ for breakfast.

Opponents argued on fiscal and philosophical grounds. Representative Seekings Crowe urged a no vote, calling the measure a taxpayer burden and saying personal responsibility played a role in his experience. Several other members said they supported the bill primarily on child‑welfare and classroom‑learning grounds.

On the committee motion that House Bill 551 \"recommend the same do pass,\" the clerk recorded 69 votes in favor and 31 opposed; the bill passed second reading in committee. On the House floor later in the day, Majority Leader Fitzpatrick moved to re‑refer House Bill 551 to the Appropriations Committee; the motion was adopted \"without objection.\"

Why it matters: Sponsors say the bill removes a minor cost that can create a barrier for families and stigma for children; opponents warned of new state costs and argued some burdens should remain local. The bill will now go to Appropriations for funding review and markup.

Votes at committee: Committee recommendation to pass (sponsor: Representative Will Romano); committee recorded vote 69 yea, 31 nay. Floor action: re‑referred to Appropriations (motion adopted without objection).

Additional details: Romano provided the sponsor's arithmetic on per‑student costs: assuming 5,676 reduced‑price students, 160 lunch days at 40¢ equals roughly $370,000; 120 breakfast days at 30¢ equals about $205,000, which the sponsor said totals just under the $600,000 appropriation.

Outlook: The bill now proceeds to the Appropriations Committee for consideration of the requested $600,000 annual appropriation.","The House moved House Bill 551 out of committee on a 69‑31 vote after extended debate about hunger, stigma and fiscal cost. Sponsors say the $600,000 annual appropriation would cover roughly 5,676 students on reduced‑price plans; the floor later re‑referred the bill to Appropriations without objection.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: House floor action March 31 — bills concurred or passed on second/third readings

House concurs in pension employer contribution extension after debate on long‑term liabilities

House concurs in bill to allow private security guard licensure before employment after debate over insurance and public safety

House concurs in bill requiring 1% longevity for detention officers; debate centers on local cost and unfunded mandate

House committee advances bill to eliminate reduced‑price co‑pays for school meals; floor vote sends measure to appropriations